Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (113573)	9/1/2003 6:14:38 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Noel. You said ...." In 1999 Iraq stated that they had gotten rid of their WMDs....."Iraq contends that all weapons of mass destruction have been eradicated, that the requirements of 1991 have been fulfilled and that the economic and financial restrictions should be immediately lifted."..... Here is the full paragraph part of which you posted above.>>> Iraq contends that all weapons of mass destruction have been eradicated, that the requirements of 1991 have been fulfilled and that the economic and financial restrictions should be immediately lifted. Public opinion in many parts of the world, sympathizing with the people of Iraq, supports a lifting of sanctions. At the other end of the spectrum, many warn that Iraq has not fully revealed its arsenal of WMDs and long-range missiles and that it may be taken for granted that more prohibited items have been produced and hidden during the absence of inspectors. It is also argued that if Iraq were freely to use its oil proceeds much of it would go to rearmament. What are we to make of these conflicting views?<<<<< And the reason that sanctions remained in place until this latest war would be?. --------------------------------- And the reason weapon inspectors tried for years to get back in would be.? Even Blix told the UN and the world that sadam still had not accounted for WMD. No where in the article you produced did it say that iraq is/was free of WMD at the start of the last war. ------------------------------------- From the web site you provided.>>>> Iraq contends that all weapons of mass destruction have been eradicated, that the requirements of 1991 have been fulfilled and that the economic and financial restrictions should be immediately lifted. Public opinion in many parts of the world, sympathizing with the people of Iraq, supports a lifting of sanctions. At the other end of the spectrum, many warn that Iraq has not fully revealed its arsenal of WMDs and long-range missiles and that it may be taken for granted that more prohibited items have been produced and hidden during the absence of inspectors. It is also argued that if Iraq were freely to use its oil proceeds much of it would go to rearmament. What are we to make of these conflicting views? First, we must note that although there are, indeed, differences between the Members of the Security Council, they seem to remain firmly behind the demand in resolution 1284 (1999) that Iraq must accept inspection by UNMOVIC. Further, although the resolution acknowledges that Iraq has made progress towards the required eradication of its programme of WMDs, it states explicitly that there remain “unresolved disarmament issues” and among them “key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq”.